David Taylor: The village post office is on the edge of an abyss. Some 80 per cent. of those 8,000 vital businesses would collapse without the annual Department of Trade and Industry support subsidy, due to end in 16 months, and the post office card account, which will expire in 2010. To survive, the rural network needs the lifelines of post office-based banking products, preference in the distribution of government services and an early White Paper to spell out a clear future framework. Does my hon. Friend—who is the most astute of Ministers—think that he is doing enough to tackle that most acute of crises?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend will be able to make his own judgment shortly, because, as the Secretary of State has said, he will make an announcement before the Christmas recess. Because of my hon. Friend's long family association with the Post Office, he knows that the current position is unsustainable, with losses of £100 million per year, expected to rise to £200 million per year. Investment from the Government since 1999 has been £2 billion, including £150 million for the rural network, which, as my h F says, will continue until 2008. We know that POCA must have a successor, and that Government assistance will be required to maintain a viable national network. My hon. Friend will shortly be able to see the outcome of all the Government's efforts, particularly over the past six months.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady accords me status above my station by saying that I made the decision to abolish the post office card account. First, that would not be my decision. Secondly, no such decision has been taken. The Department for Work and Pensions is in negotiations with Post Office Ltd. and others about a successor to the post office card account, and we have given assurances to the House that there will be a successor, as, regardless of what happens, more than 1 million people will be dependent on that to receive their benefits. As we all know, the vast majority of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are small business people, and they sometimes trade jointly and service communities with other products. We are doing what we can to assist them, and we know how important they are to communities. When the Secretary of State makes his announcement shortly, the hon. Lady will see that we have made provision to do the best we can for the whole network.

David Evennett: I welcome what the Minister has said today, because Bexley has lost nearly half its post offices or sub-post offices in the past five years. Will he reaffirm that the coming statement will also take into account the needs of the suburbs, which require local post offices or sub-post offices to be viable, sustainable communities. Such facilities need to be near where people live.

Paddy Tipping: But is not some change inevitable, when 98 per cent. of new pensioners choose to take their pensions through the banks, and the 200 smallest post offices have fewer than 20 customers a week? Will the Minister ensure that the maximum effort goes into maintaining as much of the existing post office network as possible?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend paints an accurate picture of the statistics relating to the changing face of even the benefits business. Seventy-five per cent. of benefit recipients have bank accounts, and, as my hon. Friend says, 98 per cent. of new pensioners are choosing to have their benefits paid into a bank account. The way in which benefits are received is changing, but as I said earlier, at least 1 million people will still depend fully on the Post Office for their benefits. We know that we must provide for the most vulnerable, whether they are in the rural communities, the suburbs or deprived urban areas, and that will be a key consideration for the purposes of the Secretary of State's statement.

Edward Davey: When the Secretary of State eventually makes his statement, will he also explain why he wants to scrap Postwatch, the consumer watchdog that has helped to fight so many rural post office closures in the past? Is it mere coincidence that Ministers are trying to muzzle an independent specialist watchdog and merge it with another body at the same time as proposing to cull rural post offices—or is it all part of the same plan?

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his courtesy in informing us in advance of his absence—but meanwhile, the Minister seems to be doing extremely well. Can he tell us how many post offices will close as a direct result of the withdrawal of the Post Office card account? Does he accept that a "Post Office card account 2" that looks after only 1 million of the 4.5 million customers will not be enough to save many small post offices? Last week Postwatch said:
	"the government, the regulator and other relevant stakeholders need to form a common strategic view of what social outcomes are desired from the post office network"
	Will the Minister assure us that when the Government statement is made later this month, it will address ways in which post offices can work with carriers other than Royal Mail, and also Royal Mail's anti-competitive activity in poaching business from sub-post offices?

Dennis Skinner: My question must be set against the background of the situation being difficult. In rural communities, like my Bolsover constituency, which is 25 to 30 miles long, most rural post offices have survived—with help—but in some cases people do not want to run the post office because they cannot make a profit. We did things about that: one of the things we did was to manage to get one set up in the miners' welfare, and it is still there. When the Minister discusses great and grandiose plans, will he take into account the fact that imaginative ideas such as that should be continued with, because we can save quite a lot of post offices if people only put their minds to it?

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Department of Trade and Industry, Royal Mail Group and Post Office Ltd have spent £25 million on pilots over 18 months, examining operations such as personal banking, virtual banking, mobiles and hosting operations, and they have been enormously successful. In fact, we have returned post office services to some communities that lost them years ago. The Post Office has to be imaginative. There will be an opportunity for communities to examine the Secretary of State's proposals and to see if they fit with their profile, and for them to come up with their own ideas on how best to protect their network, which we want to make sure will be provided nationally. So the points made by my hon. Friend are very relevant to many communities.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The Government take identity fraud very seriously, which is one of the reasons why we are bringing forward our identity card proposal—about which I know that the hon. Gentleman is very supportive and sympathetic. We take such issues seriously. We are in discussions with the banks about the ability of individuals to get above their level of credit. We are also talking, via the Insolvency Service, to credit card companies. These are important issues and I know that the organisations that market such services take them seriously, but we always need to be vigilant.

John Whittingdale: I recognise the need to increase the amount of energy that we get from renewable sources, but does the Minister accept that there are many preferable alternatives to onshore wind farm development, and is he aware that the application to build 10 400 ft wind turbines at Bradwell on sea, in my constituency, is massively opposed by the local community and has been rejected by the local planning authority? If it is allowed to go ahead, it will spoil one of the most beautiful and historic areas of the country.

Malcolm Wicks: I am not sure that I can agree with that. As I said, these issues need to be decided on project-by-project basis. Various projects have come before the Secretary of State, including an important one at Whinnash, the answer to which, following an inquiry, we judged should be no. An equally controversial project was planned for Romney Marsh, which we thought should go ahead. However, we will not get very far if there is a wide body of consensus saying, "Yes, climate change is the big issue facing us, and yes, we need more renewable energy—but when it comes to my constituency, no, no, no." There has to be some moderation.

Margaret Hodge: I am rather tired of Opposition Members constantly proclaiming that jobs have been lost in manufacturing industry under this Government. If we look at the record, this year up to September, we have lost 75,000 jobs because of increased productivity and new technology, not because of a reduction in manufacturing output. We should compare that to 1981, when we lost 673,000 jobs in one year alone, or 1991, when we lost 422,000 jobs in one year alone. The record speaks for itself.

Meg Munn: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the debate. The Bill has just been published and there will be an opportunity to explore some of those issues in depth. Our policy has always been to try and make up the disadvantage that women feel and, as the hon. Lady knows, two thirds of the pension credit goes to women. We will welcome all constructive contributions to the debate.

Julie Kirkbride: But as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) points out, the Minister must be worried about the quality of advice that she is offering. If women are, as statistics show, on relatively low earnings, it cannot make financial sense for them to save towards a private pension when the minimum income guarantee that the Government offer goes up by earnings every year, and not by inflation. Is she not worried that many such women will be angry when they reach retirement? They will have saved for a private pension that is swallowed up in benefits forgone.

Ruth Kelly: Most Members of this House will think that it was right for the Prime Minister to express his deep sorrow about this country's role in the slave trade. Of course, on the occasion of the bicentenary we will celebrate the UK's achievement in having been at the forefront of abolishing this evil trade. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that while we recognise that 200-year history, it is also right that we face up to the new challenges that confront us in today's world and do not ignore the many hundreds—indeed, thousands—of people who have become victims of human trafficking. He is right, too, to draw attention to the importance of the European convention, the aims of which we support in their entirety. As he says, we have been at the forefront of efforts in this area, and we are considering whether we should sign the convention. We agree with all its aims in principle, but there are certain aspects that we need to ensure would not affect our ability to secure our borders.

Jack Straw: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 4 December—Remaining stages of the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill.
	Tuesday 5 December—Opposition Day [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate entitled "Government failures on Public Health", followed by a debate entitled "Failure of Government Transport Strategy and Mounting Capacity Crisis on British Roads and Railways". Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
	Wednesday 6 December—A debate on European Affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Thursday 7 December—Estimates [1st Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the provision of affordable housing followed by a debate on occupational pensions.
	Details will be given in the  Official Report.
	At 6 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
	Friday 8 December—The House will not be sitting.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 11 December will be:
	Monday 11 december—Second Reading of the Offender Management Bill, followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
	Tuesday 12 December—Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill.
	Wednesday 13 December—Second Reading of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Bill.
	Thursday 14 December—A debate on fisheries on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
	Friday 15 December—The House will not be sitting.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 14 December and 11 January will be:
	Thursday 14 December—A debate on changes in medical and clinical practice.
	Thursday 11 January—A debate on the future of legal aid.
	 The information is as follows:
	 Communities and Local Government: in so far as it relates to the provision of affordable housing (Third Report of the Communities and Local Government Committee entitled "Affordability and the Supply of Housing", Session 2005-06, (HC703-11).
	 Work and Pensions: In so far as it relates to assistance for those who have lost their occupational pensions. (Sixth Report of Public Administration Committee entitled The Ombudsman in Question: The Ombudsman's Report on Pensions and its Constitutional Implications", Session 2005-06, (HC1081).

Jack Straw: I do not have detailed figures with me, but I know for certain that Crown Prosecution Service funding has increased substantially, and that its performance has improved considerably, with more offences prosecuted and offenders brought to justice. Under any Government, there will be changes in the configuration of courts, for example, and I wish the hon. Gentleman well in his discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Tony Lloyd: May I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 360?
	 [That this House is appalled that while the City of London booms most cleaners there receive no sick pay, no pension, only the legal minimum holiday allowance, earn as little as 5.35 per hour and many take two jobs to make ends meet; commends the courageous campaign by cleaners in the City to secure a living wage; welcomes this campaign's extension to other major cities; believes that the cleaners' endeavours will lead to a real improvement in their treatment; notes that a living wage is about more than hourly pay but includes sick and holiday pay and pensions; contrasts the shocking gulf between the estimated 8.8 billion paid out in City bonuses this year with the poverty-pay cleaners must survive on in London, one of the most expensive cities in the world; recognises that global companies make significant profits by operating out of London and requests that they therefore behave responsibly towards their most vulnerable workers; is extremely concerned that progress towards a living wage is being impeded by the intransigence of the City's major banks and law firms' refusal to recognise the cleaners' trade union, the Transport and General Workers Union, and allow them to negotiate on behalf of the cleaners; and calls upon companies such as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, Credit Suisse, CitiBank, Lehman Brothers, Nomura and Lovells to instruct their contract cleaners, including ISS, Lancaster and Initial, to settle with the Transport and General Workers Union on a living wage, holiday pay, pension, sick pay and union representation.]
	The motion concerns living wages for cleaners, and the dispute with London merchant banks such as Goldman Sachs. According to the Transport and General Workers Union, a Christmas dinner for a typical family of four costing £14 per head—which is quite expensive—would take a cleaner a full day's work to earn., while it would take a director of one of the banks less than 90 seconds, although it might take a little longer to earn the champagne. Is it not time the dispute was brought to an end, and cleaners were given a proper living wage?

Gordon Prentice: May we have a statement on ministerial training? I understand that the first-ever training course for junior Ministers was held at the National School of Government in Sunningdale only recently. Given all the controversy about the management of the Home Office and other Departments, it would be nice to be told how people are getting on.

Andrew Turner: The Leader of the House is not usually given to hyperbole but he did err in that direction in responding to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) on back-garden development. Could that be because the Government have a guilty secret? They think that back-garden development and the pressure on housing in the south-east is a result only of people unreasonably setting up new families and living longer, when there is in fact a third reason: the 500,000 new people who came into this country last year, and the many more people who come every year. Perhaps we could have a debate on that?

Jack Straw: I take the right hon. Gentleman at his word if he says that the Prime Minister has in the past given the statement about the NATO summit. But I also say to him that Members of this House cannot have it both ways: on the one hand the Prime Minister is taunted for taking too much control over Ministers, but on the other hand when he sensibly delegates responsibility to a senior colleague—who, in this instance, attended the event—he is criticised for not being present. This Prime Minister has made more statements per year than previous Prime Ministers. He will make a statement on the future of the Trident system on Monday, and I support him on the matter asked about: I think that it is perfectly reasonable that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence makes the statement today. It was an important summit, but he attended it and can give good witness as to what was decided at it.

James Duddridge: May we have a statement on the legislative process for the Climate Change Bill, and specifically on whether it will be appropriate for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to take on a pre-legislative scrutiny role?

Jack Straw: I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about that. The answer to the question is that that partly depends on whether the Bill is published in draft. The proposal in the Queen's Speech is that we have a Bill rather than a draft Bill, but we did think about having a draft Bill. If it is published in final form, because it will have its Second Reading after 1 January it will in any event be subject to the much-improved public Bill Committee stage that the Modernisation Committee proposed and the House has endorsed, including an inquiry over the first three or four sittings.

John Reid: Of the 24 sites that have so far been investigated, contamination has been found at 12 of them. There are two stages to the process. The first is the detection of some radioactive contamination and the second, which takes a little longer, is studying it to see which form it is. In most of the cases that I have identified, the contamination is polonium-210. It is at very low levels in some cases, and higher in others, although none is a health hazard of any significance. As my hon. Friend may know, the radiation output is measured in becquerels, which is the rate of radioactive deterioration of the material, or the number of clicks on a Geiger counter, for those who are not scientifically minded. The range of contamination of polonium-210 found so far is quite significant, but even at the higher limits it is not a huge risk to anyone.

Des Browne: The hon. Gentleman knows that I share his ambition that we will work with our NATO allies to develop a capacity and capability that transforms NATO into an organisation that meets the evolving challenges of the 21st century. He will be pleased to know that all partners in NATO confirmed their ambition in relation to that objective in a co-operative fashion.
	On budgets, we have not abandoned—nor have we asked NATO to abandon—the 2 per cent. commitment. As the declaration recognises, in the case of some partners, there has been a fall in investment in respect of a reduction in their budget. We have to halt and change that direction of movement. There is a commitment in the communication towards that.
	With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we ought to celebrate the success of the transformation that has already taken place in NATO towards the expeditionary capability that we are seeing so successfully deployed in Afghanistan. However, that is not to say that there are not still challenges. Some of those challenges were discussed at length and relate to caveats and to a commitment of forces. Significant progress was made in that regard, but there is still much to do and I make no bones about that.
	I do not think that it is appropriate that we only recognise the loss in Afghanistan of soldiers who come from certain nations. Many other nations, including some of those who have deployed soldiers to the north and west of the country, have also lost brave troops in engendering the progress in Afghanistan. It would be entirely inappropriate if, as NATO, we reduced our policy in Afghanistan to a balance of body counts. That is not the appropriate way to look at things. Sacrifices have been made by other countries.
	Afghanistan, in parts other than the south, needs to be maintained in its state of progress and forces need to be deployed in that regard. However, the hon. Gentleman is right that the commanders on the ground need to have the flexibility to be able to move their troops, in relation to the operation plan, across the whole country. However, we should not become Helmand or southern-focused any more than those who are in the north or the west should become focused on only those parts.
	On the comprehensive approach, there has been significant development. That is reflected in the declaration, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read, in terms of the commitment for NATO to work. The area is difficult, and I understand that. As I explained in my statement, it is not a zero-sum game between the European Union and NATO, and it should not be allowed to become one. He is perfectly correct to say that there is no need for duplication, but there is a need for co-operation and, in particular, strategic co-operation.

Nick Harvey: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance notice of it. I agree that it is good news that all the NATO member states have recommitted themselves to the action in Afghanistan. What assumptions were made at the summit about the length of the commitment in Afghanistan? In reconfirming their support, are all the member states up for a long haul, which it is generally agreed now is what they are going to be in for?
	On caveats, the Secretary of State has done his best to reinforce the smiles and the declarations at the end of the summit, but, rather like Budgets, these things often look better at the time than they do a day or two later. He has said that he cannot go into the detail of caveats today because other countries will have to confirm their arrangements. How long does he think that that confirmation process will take? Is it true that the larger countries, with the significant numbers, have agreed only that they will help in an emergency? Surely they would have helped in an emergency in any case, or else what sort of an alliance is it?
	It is doubtless welcome that Slovenia and Luxembourg have agreed to lift their caveats, but with 50 and 10 troops respectively, that is not going to make a big difference to the shortages of troops in southern Afghanistan. Is the Secretary of State assuring us that serious progress has been made in dealing with the shortage of 2,500 or so troops in the south? He mentioned helicopters. Will he confirm whether he is confident that the helicopter shortage has also been addressed?
	Will the Secretary of State tell us what discussion, if any, there was about NATO developing relationships with countries outside the north Atlantic area? Australia and Japan, for example, have been referred to in recent days. What was the French attitude to that? What future does he see for NATO entering into relationships with sympathetic countries in other parts of the world?

Des Browne: My hon. Friend identifies some of the challenges that we face, but may I tell him that frustration when dealing with any international community, never mind one that has been as successful as NATO over the past century or more, is a luxury? He recognised that the sovereign states that comprise an international community approach co-operation differently, depending on their circumstances. We must work with countries to encourage and support them through necessary change. Germany is an outstanding example, as it would have been unthinkable less than a decade ago for German troops to be deployed effectively in the international sphere. There is still much for them to do , but he will know that the German Government have expressed a desire to move forward. I have enough problems dealing with the issues as a member of the British Government without telling the Germans how to solve their problems.

Joan Ryan: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have freedom of movement within the European Union. If I understand him correctly, he is not disagreeing with me, in that we need to work together as member states and co-operate in tackling illegal immigration at the point at which illegal immigrants enter the EU. Working together and working with third countries is thus important.
	I was about to speak of the kind of co-operation that we would like to continue with and to give an example of the success of such co-operation. The case I describe to the House involves trafficking in human beings. Lithuanian women and girls were trafficked to the UK and sold to Albanian organised crime groups for prostitution. Eurojust facilitated mutual legal assistance requests, the initiation and co-ordination of investigations and prosecutions, and the execution of an urgent European arrest warrant. The cases resulted in the start of an investigation in Lithuania against the organisers, a number of convictions in the UK, including sentences of 18 and 21 years, and the transfer of prosecution to Lithuania of a Lithuanian arrested in the UK.
	The sorts of practical action that we would want the EU to focus on under the Hague programme include further development of Eurojust and the European judicial network as facilitators of judicial co-operation between member states. Practical co-operation through them is a fast, effective and easily arranged means of dealing with issues which may otherwise require time-consuming and resource intensive negotiations.
	We are also pressing for improved co-operation on immigration and border control, both bilaterally and through Frontex. Concrete operations in which expertise and support are exchanged are extremely effective ways of bringing about rapid improvements. A bilateral study visit exchange between the UK national document forgery unit and Bulgarian border police led to a project to set up an equivalent unit in Bulgaria to strengthen its border control, to increase the capacity to detect forged documents.

David Heathcoat-Amory: On the important issue of switching justice and home affairs to majority voting, when the Minister gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee she would not rule it out. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), at the European Convention ruled it out when he said:
	"We have accepted extensions of majority voting on everything else in the Third Pillar, but if you look at our judicial system and court system - it becomes impossible for us".
	Why was it impossible for us in 2003, but the Government are now contemplating it? Is this not another example of the Government talking tough before proposals are made and then altering their position when the proposals come forward?

Joan Ryan: The fact that the right hon. Gentleman says that we are contemplating this does not mean that we are. I was clear on this point when we last discussed it—that is included in this report—that we will not say that we simply will not discuss certain things. First, it is important to discuss how we achieve speedier and effective decision making in justice and home affairs. That was the nature of the discussion. As I said, the Commission's view was that the passerelle was the solution. That is not necessarily our view, but it does not mean that we will not have the debate. Of course we will have the debate. Moreover, I will not look ahead through a crystal ball at any subsequent discussions or debates. Suffice it to say we have made it absolutely clear—

Joan Ryan: I have dealt with those points, so I shall carry on with my remarks.
	The debate at EU level has been general. It did not get much beyond the question of whether, in broad terms, member states were in favour of transferring police and judicial cooperation to the first pillar. The majority, including the UK, expressed doubts about the Commission's reasoning and concerns about the potential impact. Given the overall tone of the debate, there was little discussion of what such a transfer might look like or what safeguards or restrictions might be put in place. That is why we have tried not to speculate about what safeguards might or might not be appropriate.
	We are not convinced that now is the right time to consider change. We consider that the debate at Tampere clearly indicated that there was little appetite for using the passerelle, and on that basis we think that the current debate is effectively over. We should instead focus our energy on delivering practical measures that make a real difference to the safety and security of our citizens. The Home Secretary will make that point clearly at next week's Justice and Home Affairs Council meeting.
	In conclusion, I return to my starting point. The Hague programme review is a welcome opportunity to take stock of what has been achieved and to review priorities. EU member states face similar threats from terrorists and organised crime and are affected by each other's vulnerabilities. Terrorist cells, crime and illegal immigration networks operate across borders and are invariably international. Working together in the EU, at 25-state level and bilaterally, is essential if we are to reduce the common threat and our vulnerability to it. The Hague programme and its associated strategies and action plans provide an effective framework for co-operation.

Edward Garnier: As long as the right hon. Gentleman promises not to refer to any form of spineless behaviour.

Edward Garnier: My parliamentary neighbour has only just arrived for the debate, which lasts only an hour and a half, so would he mind awfully if I made some progress? Otherwise, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk will not have an opportunity to speak. I have absolutely no doubt that whatever the right hon. Gentleman wants to say will appear in tomorrow's  Leicester Mercury in any event.
	On 19 September, the shadow Home Secretary wrote to the Home Secretary asking for an assurance that, on behalf of the British Government, he would retain the national veto over policing, our courts and our criminal laws because it is vital to the UK's national interest and the rights of British citizens. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) said in his letter:
	"If you surrender the veto, and introduce part of the European Constitution by the back door, you will put those rights in jeopardy. I urge you to state publicly and categorically that the UK veto will not be surrendered."
	My right hon. Friend is yet to receive a reply from the Home Secretary. The Minister gave evidence to the European Scrutiny Committee on 18 October and made some further remarks this afternoon, but I am still not clear about where the Government's true position lies. As I say, today we have an opportunity to ensure that the Government explain themselves and, if they will not, to be shown not to have done so.
	We are talking about a form of competence creep from the third pillar of European structures to the first. It has always been our understanding—and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) suggested a moment ago, we had thought that it was the Government's understanding—that there should be no competence creep from one pillar to another. There should be no eliding of the pillars on matters of home affairs and justice. As my right hon. Friend said, that was the view not only of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), but of the Prime Minister.
	On 18 June 1997, one of the first occasions that he appeared before the House as Prime Minister, our current Prime Minister said:
	"In the justice and home affairs area, we have agreed better arrangements for co-operation on police matters, crime and drugs...However, such co-operation will remain intergovernmental and subject to unanimity. Thanks to amendments that we also secured, the European Court will have no authority to decide cases brought in United Kingdom courts on those issues."—-[ Official Report, 18 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 313.]
	There, at the outset of the Government's coming to power, the Prime Minister made it quite clear that he was not prepared to see any elision between the pillar structure or any use of a passarelle or gangplank to allow constitutional travel between one part and the next.
	On 6 June 2005, the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said in response to questions on a statement:
	"The hon. Gentleman asked me whether we are intending to introduce any part of the constitution by the back door. The answer to that is no."—[ Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 994.]
	He subsequently said that
	"there will be no proposals made by this Government that seek to bring in this constitutional treaty, or elements of it, by the back door. That is clear."—[ Official Report, 6 June 2005; Vol. 434, c. 1000.]
	He said that precisely in the context of a form of constitutional competence creep, which has concerned not just Conservative Members but those of all parties on the European Scrutiny Committee. If the Committee had no concerns, it would presumably have let the whole thing go through on 18 October without requiring the matter to be reported to the House. I look forward to hearing from the Chairman, the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, whether he is in any part satisfied by the answers that he was given on that day and in the Minister's speech this afternoon.

Edward Garnier: The problem is that, when the Minister gives oral evidence, she says one thing, but when she gets back to the Department, someone—no doubt with the best motives in the world—hands her a piece of paper that says something different. On 30 October, she sent to the Committee, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) sits, a letter about some of the matters raised in her oral evidence. In a passage about the use of the passerelle, the letter says that it is unclear whether the Finnish presidency will propose further work on the subject during its presidency and that:
	"The Government considers the current debate to be over and that we should instead focus on practical measures in the current JHA agenda."
	That is fine, so far as it goes, but it is not clear whether the Government will therefore resist or veto any further competence creep, or whether they are simply parking the issue until some later date when there is a new President, or some new state of affairs in which a different view might be taken. For the life of me, I am no nearer to understanding what the Government are going to do on our behalf as a consequence either of the Minister's evidence to the Committee or of reading her letter.
	It should not be beyond the wit of man, or woman, for a Minister to understand what their own Government's policy is, and to be able to explain it in terms that everyone on the Committee can understand so that the Committee is not so worried that it requires the matter to be further discussed on the Floor of the House. Until we get clear answers from the Minister about what the Government intend to do, what their position is, and how they propose to defend the interests and rights of the British public, it is perfectly proper for the Opposition and other Members to criticise motions that are tabled in this rather bland and meaningless fashion. It is no good Ministers huffing and puffing and saying that the Opposition are silly to go on complaining.
	I accept that the issue is complicated, and I dare say that the Minister has spent a long time since coming into the Home Office last May getting to grips with the issues with which she has to deal on this aspect of Government policy. None the less, and even though it is difficult and complicated and involves multi-handed negotiations with all the other EU states, there is no excuse for the Government not making themselves clear. The messages that we are getting from them have tended to increase, rather than to remove, confusion. That is why my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are deeply dissatisfied with the way in which the Government have presented themselves to the House and to the Committee.
	There are a number of other detailed issues that I do not have time to discuss this afternoon, about which the Government have been less than clear in regard to the amalgamation, the eliding, of the two separate pillars. There are matters to do with the use of the veto in the national interest, and matters to do with the Government's acceptance of qualified majority voting as the best way to deal with these issues, which are integral to the national sovereignty of any country. We have only to look at the remarks of the Foreign Minister for Ireland to see how strongly he feels about this issue. We need to understand how important the making, enforcing and policing of the criminal law is to each country's own national make-up; these are not ephemeral matters of temporary interest.
	This Parliament is here to decide the criminal law of this country, and to determine the relevant punishments. It would not be proper for our Government—even when they do know what they are talking about—simply to allow, through neglect or failure to keep a proper look-out, matters that are firmly under the unanimity pillar of the European treaty to move quietly along the gangplank into the QMV pillar.
	The Government are here to give an account of themselves, and Parliament is here to make sure that Ministers are accountable. I congratulate the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk and his Committee on bringing the Government to the Floor of the House to explain themselves. I remain wholly unsatisfied, and wholly unclear about what their real attitude is towards this issue. I urge all Members to treat the motion tabled by the Minister with the deepest of scepticism.

Michael Connarty: I accept that point. There is an accused who has been arrested and charged with a crime. No one has been charged with a crime in the evidence warrant scenario. Significantly, Germany said that it would accept the arrest warrant only if it had a derogation from six major areas in which the evidence warrant would be applied, because it thought it too vague, not relevant to trans-national crimes such as terrorism, and not strong enough to make it give up its right to dual criminality. The issue in question would have to be a crime in Germany and in the country from which the evidence warrant came.
	This issue foundered on the basis of hot pursuit and surveillance. My worry is that hot pursuit and surveillance are a clear signal from the Commission of its intent and where it wants to go. We as a Committee suggest that Parliament, and also the British people, demand that the Government and this Minister stand firm on that matter, now and in the future. She said in her letter that there were no "significant gains" for the UK from the passerelle. The judgment must be in terms of when we discuss this further.
	Until we find that there are significant gains in something to move the justice and home affairs Hague agenda forward, such Commission proposals should not be brought back to the House. I hope that the Minister will stand firm on that in any Council she attends.

William Cash: The debate has reminded me of a part of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland". The mock turtle's buckets of tears over the meetings with the griffin and Alice herself—I hope that I am right about this—came to mind when I heard all the references about the invertebrates, as did the remarkable statement made at that point in the book that rather summarises the position of the Government in the current context:
	"Will you, won't you, will you, won't you, will you join the dance?"
	The Minister has been engaged in something of a quadrille over the issue under discussion over the past few months. Even to this day and this minute, I do not think that she has answered the real question, which deserves to be answered and should have been answered a long time ago. As I pointed out in an intervention, this motion says that it is
	"the Government's position that this is not the right time to focus on institutional change".
	In Eurosceptic-speak that means "for the foreseeable future"—or similar phrases that we have heard over the past 20-odd years while I have been involved in this issue—because that is just an acceptance of that for the time being by the Government. That is why I disagree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), my colleague on, and Chairman of, the European Scrutiny Committee: I will certainly vote against this motion. The door has opened and the Government have allowed the provisions to come through.
	I remember the 150 or so amendments that I tabled on the Nice and Amsterdam treaties, not to mention Maastricht, all because I was opposed to the continuous creeping invasion of our national sovereignty. All parties have agreed with me on that in the Chamber today: I have heard Members of all parties agree that they do not want an invasion of our national sovereignty. I have even heard that from the Liberal Democrats—heaven forgive me for mentioning that. The fact is that such arguments, which were utterly unacceptable some time ago, now seem to be fairly common form.
	The problem is, however, that when we get down to the application of that principle to a matter such as that under discussion, the position that the Government adopt is purely one of current expediency. They know perfectly well that the Germans do not want cherry-picking in this area because they want the constitutional treaty. They know perfectly well that the Irish have taken a position for their own internal reasons—I pay tribute to Mr. McDowell, to whom I have spoken on many occasions and who has a robust view about Irish sovereignty. I understand that there are people in other countries, such as Denmark and Poland, who all take the same position.
	The Minister's motion is, therefore, right to state
	"that there was little support amongst Member States".
	But the question that one has to consider is: where is all this still going?
	I am glad that my Front-Bench colleagues are taking the decisive position of voting against the motion. I have, on occasion, had reason to criticise some of my good friends for being a little less than decisive in vetoing other treaties, for example, when we had the opportunity to do so.
	The practical side of this proposal needs to be examined against the background of the reasons that the European institutions, and particularly the Commission, are giving for extending it to include qualified majority voting and the abandoning of the veto. As all Members have said, this is about national sovereignty and our criminal justice system. The Minister said that she wants to defend our national cause, but she has not closed the door in that regard, because the Government are part and parcel of The Hague programme and the treaties that have allowed it. I want this House to reassert its supremacy. I am very happy to have co-operation with other countries, particularly on trade, but we must override the European Communities Act 1972 and ensure that the judiciary is obliged to obey the latest legislation. Any attempt to go down this route—it remains on the table, even under the terms of this motion—has to be repudiated, which is why I am thoroughly glad that the leadership of my party has determined that we will vote against the motion.
	The Commission says that the reason for having this so-called passerelle—I do not like the word at all—is that "insufficient powers" have been given to the European Parliament. Its own document states that the
	"use of unanimity...often leads to agreement on the lowest common denominator basis"
	and provides merely for
	"a limited role for the [European] Court of Justice".
	It goes on to say why the Commission believes that these deficiencies could be remedied by the use of this so-called passerelle—this gangplank. Returning to the subject of children's stories—I have a five-and-a-half-year-old granddaughter, Tess, so I am reading them at the moment—let us remember Captain Hook and the gangplank in "Peter Pan". What was at the bottom of the gangplank? The crocodile. This passerelle has a lot of problems associated with it: there are a lot of crocodiles thrashing around at the bottom of that gangplank.
	What does the Commission regard as advantageous about the use of the passerelle? Amazingly, it is simply this: that
	"democratic legitimacy would be increased by making measures on police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters subject to co-decision with the European Parliament".
	That is a marker, for one—a good one for the crocodile. It continues:
	"the 'European dimension' would be guaranteed by giving the Commission the right to initiate proposals for legislation on these matters".
	There we are—this is an invitation to the "European dimension". The Commission wants the whole of our criminal procedures and the whole of The Hague programme to be drawn into this enlarged integration process. It wants to increase the European dimension at the expense of the dimension of the British electorate voting in general elections in a secret ballot. It is precisely for that reason that I have been so opposed to these measures over the years. In this instance, qualified majority voting would prevent us from getting our way, which is a reason to oppose these measures in itself. This is not the right time, as the Minister says it is; in this context, the right time is never.
	The Commission also puts forward the following proposal:
	"delays in the legislative process would be reduced by moving to QMV and the quality of legislation would be improved by removing the temptation to adopt the lowest common denominator as the only way to achieve unanimity".
	For heaven's sake—what gobbledegook, what trash.
	My third and last point is about the statement that
	"judicial protection would be improved by giving the European Court of Justice jurisdiction in police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters."
	I do not need to enlarge on that any further. I have made my case, but I add one final point. There are many people around today who want to undermine our judicial process and our criminal justice system at its root. That is even coming—and I say this with care and discretion—from those who wish to advocate sharia law at the expense of our judicial system. That in itself is associated with this provision, because those who advocate sharia law are also among those who, regrettably, have fallen into the trap of believing that some of the activities, in relation to terrorism, are justified. This provision is about such questions and I warn the Government to be very careful about undermining our system, either today by failing to be specific and making it clear that they will use the veto, as they should have done years ago, or by opening the door to some of the undesirable ideas contained in the Hague programme, which should have been repudiated years ago.

Nia Griffith: I welcome the motion and I understand why member states have little enthusiasm for the proposed use of article 42 passarelle in this instance. It is much more important to have continued and improved practical co-operation between EU member states. Rather than wrangling over qualified majority voting on the immensely complex and sensitive subject of justice and home affairs, which is integral to national sovereignty, it would be better to secure the fullest possible co-operation on the ground.
	Although the UK is not in the Schengen area, it is clearly in our interests to collaborate closely with those member states that are, and I am pleased to note that the Government support the plan to register entries to and exits from the Schengen area. We must also heed the concerns of front-line states, especially those on the Mediterranean, which report enormous pressure from hopeful migrants from outside the EU. That is an issue on which we need full co-operation from all member states to ensure that we tackle illegal immigration from outside the EU and have workable systems for managing legal migration. In particular, as we talk about commemorating the abolition of slavery, we must work together to tackle the present-day problem of human trafficking.
	We need to improve co-operation in one specific area. Following a dreadful incident close to my constituency, in which a Polish migrant worker, who had already served a sentence for rape in Poland, raped again. I discovered from the local police that there is no systematic EU-wide system for registering sex offenders. When I raised the issue with ministerial colleagues in the Home Office, they were very sympathetic and told me that it is being considered by EU member states. May I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister what progress has been made in developing an effective, EU-wide sex offender register? It is practical co-operation like that that is needed. It is only by having effective systems to keep appropriate tabs on the very few individuals who pose a threat to public safety that we can build up positive attitudes—

Wayne David: On the whole, I welcome the Hague programme. It offers a practical approach to many problems facing Britain and Europe today. I also welcome the action plan adopted by the Council of Europe in June 2005.
	The European Scrutiny Committee has studied four communications from the European Commission, one of which was the annual report on the Hague programme. It said that progress had been satisfactory, except with regard to the measures proposed under article 6 of the EU treaty. The main reason for that was the alleged lack of unanimity among Council members, which the European Commission believes makes the case for change to qualified majority voting and the adoption of the passerelle clause under article 42.
	As we have heard, the Government believe that the debate about the passerelle clause has come to an end, but my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) was right to point out that the Commission does not agree. Only the other day, Commissioner Frattini declared in a debate in Helsinki that the Commission believes that the debate is very much still going on. The Commission has not modified its position one iota: it still believes very firmly that the Council should adopt the passerelle clause.
	We must be clear about where Parliament stands on this matter. Although I believe that we should adopt the positive elements of the Hague programme, it is important that we reaffirm our opposition to the adoption of the passerelle clause. I have four concerns about this matter that I should like to set out for the House.
	First, opting in to the passerelle clause would have constitutional significance. We must be mindful that the clause could mean that it would not be possible for Britain to have bilateral extradition agreements with third countries. In other words, it might not be possible for us to have an agreement with a third country to extradite terrorists. Given that that is one of the main concerns for most British people, we need to be very careful about adopting such a provision.
	Secondly, it is important to stress that there is no provision for rescinding an opt in. If we decide to opt in to the passerelle process, we are in there for good—once in, always in. A linked problem is the extension into new areas of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. In addition, more powers are implied for the European Commission, as it would be up to the Commission to bring infraction proceedings, and there would also be new measures for the European Parliament.
	Thirdly, the passerelle would put the UK in a weaker negotiating position, because other member states would not take our position seriously unless we had decided to opt in. If we are serious about influencing the European agenda on justice and home affairs, it will be far better for us to oppose the adoption of the passerelle clause.
	My fourth and final point is that if the passerelle clause is adopted, it will undoubtedly introduce a high degree of uncertainty in respect of the future of Europe and the treaties. A linked worry is that because the constitutional treaty has not been agreed—indeed, it was emphatically rejected by two electorates in the EU—measures will be brought in through the back door. The issues that the passerelle clause will open up need to be debated, but fully and frankly as part of treaty negotiations; we should not simply slip into adopting measures by the back door. I am worried about that uncertainty and pre-emption.
	This debate is timely. The Council of Ministers is meeting on 4 and 5 December and as Commissioner Frattini made clear, the Commission is still arguing four-square for the measure, although it recognises that some member states, especially the UK, have strong reservations. Nevertheless, the Commission has not given up hope of agreement on a matter that it considers crucial. It is, therefore, important that we, as a national Parliament, send a clear message to the Government. There can be no question of equivocation and no suggestion of capitulation or compromise—we must stand four-square in our opposition. That is what we want and I hope that our position will be maintained by the Government.

Peter Lilley: I beg to move,
	That, pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1st October 2006 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948:
	(1) the whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and
	(2) the whole of the Treasury contribution to the Fund.
	The motion gives effect to the appropriation to the House of Commons members' fund of the contribution that all Members make from their salaries every month and the sum of £215,000 from the Members' estimate, to which the motion refers as "the Treasury contribution". The fund is essentially a benevolent fund for former Members and their dependants who have fallen on hard times and need financial assistance, and payments are made with regard to individual circumstances.
	The fund is governed by various Acts that stipulate the basis on which payments can be made and the amounts payable. Some payments are known as "as of right" payments; others are awarded at the trustees' discretion. "As of right" beneficiaries are such because they are either not entitled to a parliamentary pension because they left the House before 1964, or because, as widows and widowers of former Members, they have their small PCPF—parliamentary contributory pension fund—pensions topped up. Some beneficiaries receive discretionary payments because of hardship and their personal circumstances. These are usually one-off grants to improve quality of life—perhaps to facilitate a minor home adaptation.
	The fund currently has 100 beneficiaries. The average value of the recurring payments is a modest £2,000 per annum. A handful of one-off grants are made each year with an average value of only about £5,000. Relatively small sums can make a great difference in some circumstances.
	I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my fellow trustees for all the work that they undertake on the fund's behalf, which undoubtedly involves more of their time than they were led to believe when they became trustees.

Tom Harris: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
	Rail performance is a story of recovery. Five years ago only 75 per cent. of trains arrived on time. In the year to March 2006, more than over 85 per cent. were on time, and the figure continues to rise. Many train operators now regularly achieve 90 per cent. or better, and this improvement has been secured against a background of strong growth through investment, getting the organisation right, and listening to passengers.
	In 2001, after the Hatfield accident, punctuality had fallen to 75 per cent. The industry faced other problems which had dragged down performance, particularly in organisation and structure. Since Hatfield, however, punctuality has improved consistently. The latest provisional figures for the year to October show 88 per cent. of trains arriving punctually at their final destination. Punctuality and reliability are now at their highest level for six years, and this been achieved at a time of significant growth in traffic. That is best illustrated by the numbers involved.
	Rail passenger journeys have grown by 35 per cent. since 1996-97. In 2003-04, for the first time since 1961, more than 1 billion rail journeys were made. In 2005-06, the rail industry delivered another record breaking year. Nearly 1.1 billion rail passenger journeys were completed—the most since 1959, making Britain's one of the fastest growing railways in Europe. Rail passenger kilometres have also increased, by 34 per cent. since 1996-97. The amount of freight moved by rail has increased by 22 per cent. in the past five years. In the face of these welcome trends, performance has been lifted from its low point five years ago, and that improvement has been maintained.
	The past few years have been a period of change and renewal, with unprecedented amounts of money being invested in the rail industry.

Mark Lazarowicz: One of the routes that has seen that increase is the east coast mainline, on which I am a regular traveller. My hon. Friend will be aware of the speculation about the future of the franchise because of difficulties affecting the parent company. Will the Minister assure the House and my constituents that whatever happens on the east coast mainline they will not have a worse service as a result of any changes and that the Government will ensure that the quality of service on that route does not deteriorate?

Tobias Ellwood: Before the Minister moves on, is he satisfied with the levels of freight that are going through the channel tunnel?

David Wright: On the management of the network, will my hon. Friend take a close interest in the proposal to reinstate the service from Wrexham, Shrewsbury and Telford down to London Marylebone? We lost that many years ago when it was an Intercity service. There is now a private proposal to bring it back to take passengers from Telford into London. The proposal has to go to the Office of the Rail Regulator, but it would be helpful if my hon. Friend would take a close interest in it.

Tom Harris: Thanks to my hon. Friend's efforts, I have taken a close interest in the open access application to run direct services from Wrexham through Shrewsbury and down to Marylebone. As he knows, open access operators receive no subsidy from the Government, but they do not have to pay any track access charges. The decision about whether to admit an open access operator depends heavily on whether its revenue stream will have a significant impact on existing franchises. My hon. Friend understands that that decision has to be taken by the Office of the Rail Regulator, and I cannot influence it in any way. If the proposal is successful, I am sure that the new service will provide an excellent addition to the railway services already provided to his constituents. He has campaigned extremely effectively on the issue.

Mark Lazarowicz: Turning from the east coast mainline to the west coast mainline, my hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns about the possible new franchise for the services that link Edinburgh to Manchester. One of the proposals would result in the service being operated as part of a trans-Pennine franchise. That would mean that the existing journey times, which are not particularly fast anyway, would be liable to be extended further. Is it not ironic that that would make it quicker to get by train from Edinburgh to London than from Edinburgh to Manchester? Is not that against the direction that we want to take in encouraging people to use rail services, instead of travelling by air for short distances such as Edinburgh to Manchester?

Clive Betts: We have dealt with the west coast main line and the east coast main line, so there should be some time to deal with the Midland Mainline, which I am sure the Minister will recognise has achieved very good punctuality figures—probably the best of any inner-city train operator. The problem is that it achieves those punctuality figures with very slow journey speeds in comparison with the east and west coast main lines and very low levels of investment in the track. In considering the new franchise arrangements for the Midland Mainline, will the Minister look closely at journey times? Will he also consider providing support for Network Rail, which is now looking into a project of enhancement, costing only £85 million, to begin to start reducing the journey times to Sheffield and other cities along the route? That compares with hundreds of millions spent on the east coast main line and £1 billion on the west coast main line.

Tom Harris: One of the more attractive features of this job is that one quickly gets to become very casual about figures such as £85 million, describing them as "only" such an amount. However, my hon. Friend makes a good point. Of course, reconfiguration of timetables has a part to play in improving train performance. He is absolutely right about that, but he should also be reminded that infrastructure improvements are not proposed as part of franchises, but left to Network Rail.
	I was talking about investment being essential for providing reliable services into the future. A good example is the west coast main line project, the largest project that the railway has seen for many years. We are now seeing the benefits of the £8 billion being spent on modernising the route. Since the first major stage was delivered, we have seen faster and more frequent services, and there will be more to come in 2008-09.
	Business on the route is growing quickly following the first phases of the upgrade in 2004 and 2005. The final phase is due in December 2008, and major schemes totalling £1.1 billion are now being implemented. Key outputs will include 50 per cent. more seats, faster journey times—which will include 30 minutes off the London to Glasgow route, I am happy to say—and much improved weekend services. And, with the introduction of new timetables, performance has already recovered, with the route now enjoying more than 86 per cent. punctuality.

Tom Harris: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I would like to make some progress.
	Elsewhere, the network south of the River Thames has benefited from the upgrading of the electrical power supply, enabling better timekeeping and facilitating the introduction of new rolling stock. From the passenger's point of view, rolling stock is very tangible evidence of our record investment. The average age of rolling stock on the network has come down from 20 years old in 2001-02 to only 13 years in 2005-06. In addition, 40 per cent. of rolling stock has been replaced in the last 10 years, and with 4,000 new trains and carriages we now have one of the youngest rolling stock fleets in Europe, as well as one of the fastest growing.
	For performance, this often means better acceleration and faster point-to-point times. With increasing numbers of passengers, however, it can also mean longer station stops. It is therefore all the more important to get the timetables right, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) earlier. With timetabling, the significant gains in punctuality made by some train operators and Network Rail in updating timetable structure and time allowances indicate further opportunity for performance improvement. Network Rail has a published programme progressively to review timetables on other routes. More realistic timetabling has contributed to the fact that, on many lines, up to 90 per cent. of passenger trains are now running on time.
	While making timetables more resilient, however, it is also important to ensure that the right balance is struck between the time a journey takes, and ensuring that trains run on time. The Department therefore continues to play an important part in specifying minimum levels of train service provision.

Gwyneth Dunwoody: I shall not if my hon. Friend will forgive me; I do not want to take up too much time.
	The Government want competition, but there is no real competition in the system, partly because of the capacity problems. The Committee was worried about the fact that risk had not been transferred to private companies, as was supposed to happen. We pointed out that the more risk the Government transferred to private operators, the more money they added to their demands for doing the job. The Committee concluded:
	"It is not feasible to combine a policy of increasing the level of risk transferred to the private sector with the policy of maximising premiums and minimising subsidies."
	A little clarity from the Government would lead them rapidly to conclude that the strategy has not been successful and that it should be re-examined as soon as possible.
	The Committee found that passenger rail franchising is not
	"a model capable of delivering quality rail services".
	There is clear evidence that companies are not responding to the needs of either the system or the passenger.
	The eternal argument about whether ratepayers and tax payers or passengers should pay for rail services will have to be addressed at some point. We now have the worst of all circumstances: the companies receive larger and larger sums of money for producing more and more overcrowded services, while charging their passengers eye-watering fares that are unacceptable in the 21st century.
	We need good strategies and they must be linked to the Government's specifications. It is absurd that Parliament should cheerfully agree to hand out gold bars to individual companies without asking them to produce any standards and without asking them whether they are capable of doing what they are taking our money for. The Conservative party has always lauded the joys of capitalism, so it is extraordinary that Conservative Members now resent the fact that the minimum conditions that the Government seem to be imposing demand a response. It is important for the Government to look at the whole question of the length of franchises. They must monitor the effects of day-by-day running and they must insist that, at every level, passengers are allowed to get their views known and their interests covered.
	The Government have spent a lot of money on the transport system, but some of it has gone into the wrong pockets. I am astonished that Members on the Opposition Front Bench should suggest that the poor ROSCOs should not be referred to the competition authorities simply because that would force them to put into abeyance any orders for new rolling stock. For the last three years, the rolling stock companies—particularly in my constituency—have been trying enormously hard to get the ROSCOs to invest in the sort of contracts that would have brought jobs to Crewe and would have enabled us to compete. We are capable of making some of the best rolling stock in the world, but one would not think so if one looked closely at the attitude of the ROSCOs or the individual companies.
	The industry is at long last crawling out of the mud of apathy, and the sadness of underinvestment and a management system that is unable to respond to the needs of passengers. There is a need for a sharp strike where it will hurt most. Above all, there is a need for the Government to demand that the whole attitude of the franchisees is changed so that there is value for money of the highest quality, in the interests of passengers.

David Drew: I declare my support from the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which is in the Register of Members' Interests. The RMT has organised a demonstration in the Bristol area tomorrow afternoon at 3.15 pm—everyone is invited—to draw attention to the fact that First Great Western is substantially reducing services following its successful franchise bid. Is that not an example of the way in which the rail industry is letting down its customers? People want to see improved services, but they are getting reduced services.

Kelvin Hopkins: Is there not an inherent problem with privatised franchises, in that if one wants to maximise profit, one wants to get as many people as possible on as few trains as possible, and passenger comfort will come way down on the list of priorities?

Clive Efford: I commend the Select Committee report to the Minister. It reaches a number of conclusions about the state of the rail industry, which should help to formulate Government policy, particularly regarding the franchising of rail services.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), a colleague on the Select Committee, said that the Minister is fortunate—particularly after such a relatively short time as Minister—in being able to announce good tidings about our rail system. The Government should be proud of putting significant investment into our rail system. However, the question has to be asked whether the improvements are the result of the current structure of the system or due to the Government's efforts. There is also the question of whether other structures would allow us to achieve even more in future.
	Rail subsidy by the Government is running at roughly three times the rate that obtained under British Rail. It could be argued that if it had been known at the time of British Rail's demise that it could look forward towards that level of growth in investment, the problems of declining numbers that resulted in privatisation could have been seen in a different light. The Committee received evidence from a number of people, showing that the benefits that we have seen and the growth of the rail industry over the last 10 years are not necessarily the result of the structure, but due more to the additional subsidies. Growth has come about through greater economic activity as opposed to the decline experienced in the 1990s. That, not the structure, is the key reason why improvements, expansion and increased demand on our railway system have occurred.
	I cannot avoid mentioning the new integrated Kent franchise that came into being in April, which affects my own local rail service. I opposed the contract at the time as I felt that the new management taking over from Connex had successfully turned round the rail service and produced an improvement, particularly on the lines serving Dartford via Bexleyheath, so that people were loth to see it toyed around with.
	I can tell the Minister that not a single train that I have travelled on this month has been on time. Trains seem to linger for two or three minutes on the platform at the central terminal in Charing Cross. For no apparent reason, they do not leave on time. No explanation is given for the lateness, which often leads to enormous difficulties further down the line. Only last week, I was sitting on a train in Charing Cross when it was announced that it had been cancelled, so I had to get off. A large group of people had to get off the train and they stood around the platform trying to find out what was going on. When I asked, I was told that it was the Eltham train, so I got back on it. Lo and behold, it left and travelled to Eltham. That shows the chaos that is creeping back into the service on that bit of the network. Similarly, I was off to a meeting on Tuesday, and I arrived at London Bridge 15 minutes late on yet another train service. That is my experience just in the past month. It is nothing like the service that was available under the previous contractors last year or the year before.
	As the Minister pointed out, there has been significant investment in the infrastructure in that part of the network. The electricity supply has been upgraded, allowing for greater capacity and more reliability for local train services. We hear stories about leaves on the line—thankfully, there has not been any snow yet—but there is no excuse for the level of delay that I personally have experienced in the past month. It is not what we have become accustomed to, and the franchise needs to be looked at very carefully indeed. We have enjoyed significant improvement and a consistently high standard of delivery in recent times, so any slippage backwards is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will scrutinise the delivery of that service very closely because, it has to be said, it was the Government who reissued that franchise. The buck stops at the Dispatch Box, and I will be raising the matter time and again unless we see the standards to which we have become accustomed being maintained.
	The Select Committee also took evidence about the transfer of risk, which my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has already mentioned. There is evidence that, when train operating companies fall into difficulties and go cap in hand to the Government, they are treated with kid gloves and allowed to refinance at a cost to the public purse. The Minister has said that there is no intention to do that in future, and we fully support that decision. If the train operating companies decide to play Oliver Twist and ask for more, I would urge the Minister to play Mr. Bumble.
	We are concerned that the present franchising system does little more than maintain the status quo. The Government need to look into different ways of using the system to create more innovation, investment, expansion and growth in the industry. We have seen the Government's determination in this regard, and that needs to be recognised.
	The Office of the Rail Regulator, following an approach from the Secretary of State, has asked the Office of Fair Trading to look into the cost of leasing trains from the train leasing companies. That is certainly a move in the right direction. I would not expect the companies to say other than that this will have an effect on investment. I would not expect them to roll over and say, "Okay, it's a fair cop". I would expect them to make the noises that they are making, but I urge the Minister not to be convinced by them, and to stick to the position that the Government have taken. The rising cost of leasing trains has a knock-on effect on fares and other costs to the travelling public, and that is unacceptable. The Government have taken the right steps in the direction of addressing that issue.
	I would also like to comment on issues relating to capacity. I was interested to hear the comments about Crossrail from a Conservative Member, whose constituency I cannot recall—

Clive Efford: I cannot make any reference to that line, but I commend the references in the Committee's report to rural rail services and I am sure that the Minister heard what my hon. Friend said.
	Reference has been made to overcrowding on our rail services, particularly people standing. I represent a constituency that is in an inner-London borough, but towards the outer ring of inner London. When travelling into central London, many of my constituents must stand on whatever type of train arrives at the stations in my constituency.
	Having been through the likely areas of growth in demand in our transport network in the foreseeable future, I think it is unlikely that anyone—whether Conservative or Liberal, or even Labour—will ever be able to supply a train service to central London that provides everyone with a seat. I know from talking to constituents who try to get on trains that do not even have standing space that they would rather get on such a train and be able to stand than not get on the train at all. A balance must be struck between the need to increase capacity and get people on to trains and the need to provide comfort for people on their journey into work.

Kelvin Hopkins: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and I agreed with a lot of what he said, particularly his emphasis on rail freight and the need for extra capacity.
	I also participated in a debate yesterday and I apologise to the Minister for his having to listen to me speak twice in two days about the railways; I promise that I will say different things today. Unfortunately, in between the two debates there has been a crisis on the line that I have travelled on for the last 37 years, such that it took my researcher four hours to travel 30 miles yesterday. It took me an hour and a half to get home on what would normally be a 45-minute journey. Sometimes things go wrong and we must seek to improve maintenance standards as much as we can.
	There has been much talk about climate change, and rail freight produces one twelfth of the amount of CO2 per tonne/mile of road freight. It would be a fantastic bonus for tackling climate change if we could get more freight on to rail. My hon. Friend the Minister will know that together with colleagues I am promoting the concept of a dedicated freight line from Glasgow to the channel tunnel, which would take 5 million lorry loads off our roads every year, transform the economics of the channel tunnel and provide for double-stack containers and trailers on trains all the way from Glasgow and our major industrial areas to the continent of Europe. It is a massive concept. It would also take most of the north-south freight from the east coast main line and the west coast main line, freeing up those lines for faster and more frequent passenger trains, producing much more capacity. If the east coast main line had some tweaking, such as quadrupling the track with a new viaduct at Welwyn and a couple of bypass loops further north, we could have 140 mph, non-stop trains from King's Cross to Edinburgh. On the west coast main line, we could have 135 mph trains, which might not be non-stop, but they would provide a very fast service. That would, at least for the foreseeable future, provide sufficient capacity for passengers on the north-south routes and transform journeys between here and the north.
	The rail freight line is my most important concern. Because we are an island off the coast of Europe we must be linked in to the European economy more strongly. We need a better freight artery into the heart of Europe and across the whole of Europe. The idea was promoted by Lord Kinnock, when he was the Transport Commissioner, of a rail freight network across continental Europe. It is now going great guns and a 35-mile tunnel is being drilled through the Brenner pass so that double-stack containers will be able to reach the dedicated freight line. Freight lines are also being built through the Alps between France and Italy. In the not too distant future, it will be possible to get full-scale freight trains all the way from the toe of Italy to Berlin. We have to be part of that network, so we have to use our channel tunnel and have a delivery system—a dedicated freight line—on our side. We call it the euro rail freight route and I hope that hon. Members will hear much more of it in future. We have made much progress, but there are problems with cost.
	I raised the question of costs many times in transport questions with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he was Secretary of State for Transport. The costs that I have been given for rail maintenance and new track have not been challenged and are horrendous. Before rail maintenance was brought in house, it was suggested that costs had gone up by four times under privatisation. Network Rail said that what was happening was that contracting companies were working strictly to specifications that might not be exactly right. Network Rail would discover the problem on Monday morning and the whole thing would have to be done again. The contracting companies were doing very nicely thank you, out of having to do the work twice. When it was done in house, the corrections were made as they went by directly employed engineers. The work was done once and much more cheaply.
	My hon. Friend the Minister may be aware of the railway engineers forum, at which the keynote address was given by an official from his Department, who said that there is a huge gap between what the Government want to pay for the British rail system and what they are being presented with as a bill. He addressed construction costs and said that, at present, major project expenditure goes 50 per cent. on construction costs and 50 per cent. on other things. He contrasted that with the situation in British Rail days, when the east coast main line electrification took place under Don Heath, the very fine BR engineer, who is now retired. When he was asked what the project management costs were, he said that they came to 1 per cent. of the total, with 99 per cent. of the money going on construction. The Department for Transport official said that, by today's standards, the project represented "exceptional value for money".
	The solutions that we need can be found in the way things were done in the BR days. I do not say that merely to make an ideological point, but it is clear that cash-limited projects undertaken by engineers directly employed by a publicly owned railway industry did a good job with the money that they had. The cash limits might have been painful and difficult, but they worked and we should return to that system.
	Moreover, the people directly employed by the railway industry took great pride in doing the best possible work with the money available. We need to get that motivation back into our rail industry, as opposed to the present contractual relationships. Under the present system, the more contracts and funds that are available, the better contractors like it. It is very difficult to control the associated costs, as is shown by the fact that Network Rail is bringing its maintenance arrangements back in-house. I suggest that we return to something resembling what we had in the past—an integrated rail system with directly employed engineers.
	My hon. Friend the Minister knows what I think about franchising, so I shall not repeat what I said yesterday. However, I urge him to look at the report of the seminar on railway engineering costs of 14 June 2005, when one of his officials made such a telling address about how costs could be reduced.
	That is the way forward. If costs are brought down, we will get more for our money, and fares and freight charges will also be cut. Our rail system might then start to look a bit more like the systems on the continent, where fares are much lower. In addition, the travelling public will get a much fairer deal.
	We are well into a new railway age, and that is very welcome. I have always believed passionately in the railways and seen them as the future, and it is clear that this House and the Government now share that conviction. There is still a bit of a problem with the Treasury but, once that comes onside, we will certainly be winning.

Tom Harris: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to some of the comments that have been made in the debate.
	The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) strongly criticised the Government for exercising what he called a high degree of operational control. That is an important matter, and I hope that he will bear with me as I set out my argument. If the Government were to abrogate their responsibility to set down minimum timetable standards, does he believe that private rail operators would continue—perhaps for altruistic reasons—to run services on lines that they deemed to be unprofitable? Were the Government to adopt that approach, I am sure that he would be one of the many MPs knocking on my door and asking me to intervene. He would want the Government to do what we are doing already—that is, specify minimum levels of standards.
	Earlier, I issued a challenged to him. I asked whether, if he were to become Secretary of State for Transport in a future Government, he would commit his party to a completely laissez-faire policy in respect of the railways. I wanted to him to say, on the record, whether a future Conservative Government would set those minimum standards. It is telling that he refused to offer that commitment, which means either that he is convinced that private operating companies should be allowed to set any level of standards that they choose, or that he thinks the Government should intervene.

Tom Harris: As my hon. Friend says, we had the opportunity today to discuss precisely those matters. The British public will probably expect the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell to set out his proposals for the rail industry before the general election rather than after he claims his seat on the Treasury Bench.
	I want to talk about the South West Trains franchise, which was announced in September and to which the hon. Gentleman and several Members referred. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is served by South West Trains so it is perfectly legitimate for him to talk about the franchise. He cast aspersions, but much in the franchise is good news for the travelling public. He questioned whether there will really be increases in capacity and seats—there will. There will be new rolling stock. Smartcard ticketing will be rolled out. There will be more secure stations; 95 per cent. of all passengers using the South West Trains network will travel to and from secure stations. There will be gating at stations, including Waterloo, as a way of preserving revenue. If he is not aware of some of those important, positive developments in the franchise, I am more than happy to write to him with the details. If he wants, I will even phone him. I do not know whether he has a mobile phone, but if he wants to give me the number, I am more than happy to get the information to him..
	The hon. Gentleman also talked about the rolling stock companies and asked whether it was true that there was going to be a moratorium—he predicted a two-year moratorium—on the building of new train stock. Is he saying that, with the suggestion in the air that the rolling stock companies are making excess profits—massive profits that would account for something like 8 per cent. of the total cost of tickets—we should not have asked for a full inquiry into that business, simply because of the fear that those companies would stop producing new trucks? That is a dangerous attitude for someone in his position to take. The Government have a responsibility to be a good steward of the public purse and if the inquiry that we hope will take place reveals that we could be using some of that money for investment in the rail industry, I would have thought that he would welcome that.
	What was missing from the hon. Gentleman's contribution was a solution. He talked at length about the criticisms that he has of the Government's policy. That is his job. I accept that. He is a member of the shadow Cabinet; he is in opposition; his job is to criticise the Government. However, a part of opposition is also to come up with alternative answers. His comments were noticeably lacking in any positive suggestion for finding a way to meet the challenges in the rail industry in the 21st century.
	A similar comment could be made of the speech by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Leech). I accept that he is standing in for the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), but some of the comments that the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington made just do not chime with reality. At the beginning of his speech, he said that the Government were letting the public down in terms of passenger safety. He is clearly not aware that passenger safety on the railways is at an all time high —[ Interruption. ] He is now claiming from a sedentary position that he did not say that. I am sure that  Hansard will show that he made a criticism of passenger safety.

Tom Harris: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's guidance, and I will learn at his knee about his experience in the House, which is obviously significant, compared with mine.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke with typically deep knowledge and feeling about the railways. As usual, the House listened carefully to her comments—I certainly did—and, as I said, her Committee's substantial and thought-provoking report will receive a response from the Government in due course.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) started by acknowledging that the Government's investment, of which they are rightly proud, has produced results. He talked about developments in in-cab signalling, and he is right to say that that technological innovation could have a major impact, helping us to improve track capacity in future. The Department certainly wants that to be developed. I pay tribute to him, because since I first came the House—and long before—he has been well known as a doughty campaigner for the west coast main line, which is crucial to his constituency.
	The hon. Member for Reading, East (Mr. Wilson) spoke of his commitment to Reading station, and I know that the subject is important to him and to the citizens of Reading—and, of course, to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Martin Salter). The hon. Member for Reading, East, asked whether the Government would give the go-ahead to Network Rail's master plan to renovate Reading station. All that I can tell him is that various plans are in the pipeline, and I am not yet in a position to say yes or no to any of them. However, there will be significant infrastructure improvements of one sort or another at Reading station in the years ahead.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not the convention of the House for the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to intervene in a half hour Adjournment debate at the end of the day, but I am sure that the House appreciates the importance that he attaches to the occasion by his presence.